The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

No European qualifying examination will be held in 2020 says EQE Supervisory Board

In what now seems like a different era, the EPO announced that the 2020 EQE was to be postponed in view of the emerging COVID-19 crisis (IPKat here). At that time, the full scale of the health emergency had not yet become apparent. There was hope that the 2020 EQE might be re-arranged for later in the year, provided that any such re-arrangement did not conflict with national patent exams. Any such hopes have now been dashed with a notice from the EPO supervisory board stating that the 2020 EQE will not be re-arranged: "No European qualifying examination (pre-examination or main examination
consisting of papers A, B, C and D) will be held in 2020". The full communication can be read here, with the accompanying decision here.

The communication also provides some further details on the reasoning behind the original decision to cancel the 2020 EQE:

"The main driver of such decision
was the need to safeguard not only the health and safety of the nearly 3.000 people
that participate and are involved in the organisation of the Exams, but also to preserve
the health and safety of the public in general."

The Supervisory Board goes on to list the reasons why it has decided to fully cancel the EQE 2020. These reasons include the number of European countries currently in lock-down, the uncertain nature of the situation and the need to avoid jeopardising the EQE 2021.

In lock-down

Importantly, the communication also states that candidates who had enrolled for the 2020 main examination papers will automatically be considered to be enrolled for those papers in 2021, and the fees will be carried over to 2021. Furthermore, the 2021 main examination will be marked either
on the law in force on 31 October
2019 or 31 October 2020, depending on which
of the two dates would give the candidate the higher mark.

The communication itself does not indicate whether candidates will be able to proceed to the Main Examination without completing the pre-EQE. It was hoped by some that the EPO might make this allowance, in order to ameliorate the impact of the cancellation of the pre-EQE on candidates' professional development. It seems open to interpretation whether the decision (here) accompanying the communication does allow this (see comments over on DeltaPatents). Explicit clarification from the EPO is needed.

What about the UK exams? We are awaiting CIPA to come to a decision with regards to the 2020 UK exams. CIPA has issued a statement last month that "No decision has yet been made with regard to cancellation or
postponement of the examinations. The status of the examinations is under regular review". We urge CIPA to provide clarity sooner rather than later.

No European qualifying examination will be held in 2020 says EQE Supervisory Board
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Rating: 5

The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence.

83 comments:

What is worrying is that they appear to allow pre-EQE to pass but are not providing anything for main EQE candidates. Not a pass but something for main EQEs so that all candidates to some extent can be treated fairly.

It has to be considered that the pre-EQE and the EQE are of a fundamentally different nature. One is an intermediate exam, the other one actually grants you right to practise as professional representative. The difference of the two is huge. While I certainly understand the frustration of the EQE 2020 sitters, I can also understand why the EPO decided not to alter the unified standard for becoming a European patent attorney.

Yet, when candidates had to sit exams in excessively cold exam halls, they were given extra marks to compensate for the disadvantages they were under. I think 2020 candidates resitting in 2021 are under at least as much of a disadvantage given that many will have exhausted all relevant study material in the run up to this year's exams.

Any imagined disadvantage occasioned by exhausting study material would surely not outweigh the advantage of an extra year of professional development and ability to study. The EQE is a fitness to practise exam. If you are fit to practise this year, there is no reason that you should not be as fit or fitter to practise next year.

I would prefer that CIPA/PEB cancel this year's exam and let everyone know in June so they don't have to go through the pain of revision. Times are too uncertain and it is clear that they will be strict social distancing/less gatherings measures in place for a long period of time.

Not to mention that many scientist are now expecting a second wave in the winter. Its too risky to hold one this year until a vaccine is produced and scaled up.

The only sensible interpretation of the decision is that the pre-EQE does not apply for the 2021 EQE. I fail to see any other way of understanding it. I do agree however that this could and should have been communicated in more clear and unambiguous terms.

The decision seems particularly (and perhaps unfairly) weighted towards pre-EQE candidates this year but does not take into account the loss year main EQE candidates face. It would (to me) make more sense to be fairer to main EQE candidates i.e. small number of discretionary marks to account for their loss year.

I would hate to cancel PEB but completely agree that they would have to cancel October. I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable allowing trainees and others to risk themselves for the sake of an exam. Perhaps this should also give us the opportunity to reconsider and improve the flexibility of exam system.

CIPA/PEB will not know what is going to happen in October. What is certain is the uncertainity of this pandemic in the next year or so. Much better to call this off early now rather than waste a lot of people's time.

Good point. I know many foundation exams are being held online, open book. CIPA/PEB should seriously consider this but if they can't change in time then please do cancel exams and let everybody know in June. We don't want to waste so many trainees time and only to find out in before 2 weeks of the exam that they can't take it.

Yeh i think this will all come down to the appetite of CIPA/PEB (i count these as the same body as one just seems to parrot the other) to change the format. Despite CITMA and CIPA both being regulated by IPREG, i would imagine that what is good enough for CITMA is not good enough for the high and mighty CIPA.

The tech is clearly available and can be implemented quickly.

I suspect exams will be considered the only suitable assessment methodology, even in these testing times, because mercer et al. need to make some money from selling their JDD exam preparation courses.

Some people compare patent exams to that of actuary exams in level of difficulty. I've never really understood why we boast about the exams being difficult as I don't equate that with quality of assessing knowledge and skills. If you're only boast is that your exams are some of the hardest out there, it says to me that you don't have much else to say about the profession...

Fairly straight forward to introduce digital examination alongside coursework, it is possible as other professions have done it years ago and it hasn't led to collapse of those UK professions. It's time to leave the 19th century.

PEB/CIPA should ideally make a decision by the end of this month. We all know PEB exams takes a long time to prepare - 6-7 months and many candidates may have already started. If we can't be sure exams are going ahead in October (which I personally cannot see how we can be certain) then it needs to be cancelled or an alternative assessment needs to be announced and implemented.

I'd be gobsmacked it that is the outcome of the review, it would mean that the majority of his 140 responses have said everything is alright, no problem here! If that's the case, the profession is for the dogs.

I honestly don't know what use making it open-book would be: in the exam I passed, and in all the past-papers I took preparing for it, there was nothing that required remembering much more than a basic principle - chapter and verse was not required.

So why not make it open book. Some parts of the law that is accessible should do no harm. After all - every attorney would now go and looks some stuff in the black book to confirm and then provide advice. It mirrors real life situations.

But there's the rub - once the exam is made open book, then the examiners are free to ask questions about any of the material you have brought with you, and mark you down if chapter-and-verse is not given. It encourages laziness from the examiners.

You end up with the absurd situation you get in the EQEs, with candidates having to bring in large suitcases filled with books just in case a question is asked about some obscure part of the rules regarding automatic debiting of accounts (as in last year's Paper D, in a question worth 8% of the total exam - the kind of thing which in P2 you might get a discretionary half-mark for knowing).

It makes no sense to demand certainty about the UK exams now. Nobody can know what the Covid situation will be in October, so certainty can only mean cancelling them. It's only April, so (unless candidates are a lot more diligent than when I took them), they won't be starting work in earnest for a few months yet, so why not wait and see? Nobody is forced to take the exams, so anyone who wants certainty now for some reason can simply decide to sit them next year regardless. It is not fair to deny others the chance of qualifying this year. Anyway, knowledge is never wasted!

No one is saying to make a decision in April but a decision needs to be decided soon and early so that many candidates don't waste time revising and then to be told they can't do it. This would be 4-5 months before the exam if candidates are diligent enough to start. We see this with EQE this year although they did not know back in March about corona.

PEB/CIPA know about the situation now so if they can't be certain things will go back to normal in October by June - it should be cancelled or have an alternative testing.

Yes as its April but by May (mid-end of May) if there is no certainty that candidates can travel freely and no social distancing in place and that things are back to normal then it should be postponed. They should let us know by May. Don't leave it late to tell everybody who will be involved.

However, I think CIPA/PEB should be looking now to explore whether alternative assessments can be done instead.

No one is forced to do the exam but we all know candidates will risk doing these exams even though they are putting themselves (potentially) in danger and others in danger too like inviligators and the general public.

This is one of the reason why the EPO had to cancel March because they know candidates will risk to go. Some will be pressurised by their firms to take the exam even if they do feel uncomfortable from going to the exam venue. It is a difficult decision to take so that's why it needs to come from PEB/CIPA to cancel.

Agreed. May date seems reasonable enough. Olympics, Euro2020, Wimbledon have all cancelled early to allow participates to adjust and PEB should do the same. Don't leave this until the summer when things are so uncertain.

I cannot see any restrictions lifting and hence there will be so much uncertainty In October. The governments around the world has shown that it will take action and they will NOT allow (at least try) for a second peak. So I don't expect people will be able to freely travel this year.

Plus, its a lot of money at the moment (especially for those that needs to pay for the exams this year using their own money).

I think I should explain why this situation has raised such ire amongst those who were due to sit the main EQEs in 2020.

The practical effect on every one of them of the 2020 main EQEs being cancelled is essentially the same as it would have been had they completely failed every exam they were scheduled to take.The only difference is that they won't have to pay to sit the next year's exams, and won't have a fail mark recorded, and these are the effects of failure that candidates typically care least about. The effects they care most about - career progression, salary, and ultimately self-respect and getting very stressful exams out of the way - these are the same.

This situation leaves them less well positioned to sit the EQEs in 2021. The training material available that is most relevant will have been basically exhausted in preparing for this year's EQEs, so they are left training on the material that is less relevant (e.g., past papers from 20+ years ago) whilst their training on the more relevant material becomes stale. Practical on-the-job experience that they may gain (if not furloughed) in the mean time doesn't have that much application to the exams, unfortunately, since the exams often require candidates to do the opposite of what they do in practice (to take one obvious example, risking a slightly overly-broad claim in Paper A is fatal, but in real life, given a choice between possibly-a-bit-too-broad and definitely-too-narrow, it is better to err on the side of broadness).

The exam board appear to be giving pre-EQE candidates a pass on the 2020 pre-EQE. I think almost no-one is opposed to doing this. What they are saying is that it is unfair to do this and then not give any consideration at all to the main EQE candidates. It is also unjust comapred to the consideration given to previous exam-sitters.

In previous exams, when, due to cold temperatures in the exam hall, candidates were likely to have been disadvantaged in taking the exams, they were given extra marks to compensate. Just like them, the 2020 main EQE candidates have been disadvantaged in taking the exam - in fact I don't imagine that there is a single 2020 main EQE candidate who would not swap their present situation for taking the exam this year in a cold exam hall - but no compensatory marks have been announced for this.

I would agree with you. If they are going to compensate pre EQE candidates by giving them all a free pass then it is only fair and just to give some compensatory marks for main EQE candidates this year for the exceptional circumstances.

EPO have in the past awarded marks under exceptional circumstances. This is the most exceptional circumstance these candidates have all faced.

To be fair to my firm, they are compensating trainees like they had passed some (if not all) of the EQEs they were going to sit. Obviously the other downsides apply, but at least this reduces the negative effect.

Appreciate this isn't possible for everyone but thought i would share what i think to be really great practice by the managing partner of our firm. I think that move alone has enamoured alot of people to the leadership, and the firm will probably save that money from recruitment consultant fees over the next few years.

As you have correctly said, "The practical effect on every one of them of the 2020 main EQEs being cancelled is essentially the same as it would have been had they completely failed every exam they were scheduled to take."

Failing candidates in any other year would face the same disadvantage the following year of having exhausted relevant training material. Yet, as a profession, we seem content to fail FD2/FD4 candidates year after year with no compensation being applied for each subsequent year.

The pre EQE isn't really in the same ball park since it only allows you to sit the EQEs. Such candidates still have to pass the EQEs.

I think the current crisis exposes how harsh exams can be for some in any given year and the effects go way beyond passing or failing.

Let's be clear on why the compensatory marks sound ideal to Grundy on this page: because he thinks it will be easier. Or is flexibility in examinations only to be considered when it's an exam he is due to take?

Very drole anonymous, and were I calling for a total change in the way the exam is administered, rather than just for the EPO to do what it previously did for the candidates affected by cold, it might even be relevant.

Okay, let's follow this through (I'm the same as Anonymous at 1146 by the way and for background I was registered to sit all 4 main papers this year for the first time). You think that additional marks should be given to 2020 main paper candidates (us) when they sit it next year, not, presumably, because you anticipate the examination hall being cold again, but because "many will have exhausted all relevant study material in the run up to this year's exams".

Presumably this observation only applies to first time sitters, as 2nd+ time sitters will have already exhausted these in previous years. So are you suggesting these compensatory marks only be applied for first time sitters, and only for those exams for which they were registered? Or should 2nd+ time sitters be routinely awarded extra marks to reflect their exhaustion of useful learning materials? As you have said it is in most ways as if we have sat and failed all the exams we were scheduled to sit.

I think setting a precedent for awarding extra marks on the basis that preparation was done a year earlier than needed would in fact amount to "a total change in the way the exam is administered".

Even if we were to take what you've suggested as completely true and worthy of compensatory marks, awarding marks would basically amount to the powers that be admitting that the exams are arbitrary, detached from normal practice, and can only be effectively prepared for by doing all the recent past papers in a few months before the exams. I can't see them doing that.

Don't get me wrong, I am sad that my preparation has been wasted and not looking forward to doing it all again next year, but these are the breaks.

Well - I think this article sum up what we've been discussing. Social distancing and severe travel restrictions are likely to be in place till end of the year. Pubs/bars likely to be last on the list to open this year. Large gatherings probably banned altogether.

I personally don't think PEB exams should go ahead unless an alternative can be found to assess candidates.

I agree with your analysis of the situation. But i would add that PEB would need to provide very compelling reasons why alternative assessment cannot take place, given that basically every other exam setting organisation (that has had time to react) has found a way around this.

I am not sure why so many people are suggesting 'compensatory marks' as a solution for EQE 2020 candidates. The main issues affecting the candidates are delay in qualification and the need to update exam materials for the new law. Compensatory marks do not address these issues, only giving something nice to those of us caught in this situation out of sympathy. Sentiment is not a suitable basis for legal reasoning.

Compensatory marks undermine the perception of the EQEs. (Previously they have been used for a cold venue to ensure fairness with candidates sitting the same exam in a more suitable venue. All candidates are equally disadvantaged under the present circumstances.) In addition, there are problems with applying compensatory marks.

Should they be given to all candidates sitting the EQE in 2021? Even those who had not registered last year? Pre-EQE 2020 candidates as well? Those who registered for only some exams and will now sit all exams in one sitting?

Should they be given only to those registered for EQE 2020? Leading to the situation where two candidates achieving the same mark, sitting the same exam, in the same conditions, receive different outcomes? Or, more absurd, a candidate achieving a worse mark passing while one with a better mark fails? This is not suitable for a professional examination certifying safeness to practice, and likely leaves the EPO open to a large number of appeals.

The issue of updating texts has been addressed by allowing candidates to use either legal basis.

The issue of the delay in qualification is not easy to address. A partial solution could be to hold an ‘exceptional resit’ in Autumn 2021, exclusively for those disadvantaged by the cancellation of the EQE in 2020. Four scenarios seem to be possible:

Candidate A, who would have passed all EQEs in March 2020 and does pass them all in March 2021 to qualify in Summer 2021. This candidate is delayed by a year, sadly nothing can be done to improve their situation.Candidate B, who would have passed all EQEs in March 2020, fails an exam in March 2021, resits in March 2022 to qualify in Summer 2022. This candidate is delayed by two years (or more, if further resits are needed). An exceptional resit would allow qualification in Winter 2022, reducing the delay to 18 months.Candidate C, who would not have passed all EQEs in March 2020, but does pass them all in March 2021 to qualify in Summer 2021. This candidate has suffered no delay.Candidate D, who would not have passed all EQEs in March 2020, fails an exam in March 2021, and resits in March 2022 to qualify in Summer 2022. This candidate is delayed by one year. An exceptional resit would reduce the delay to six months.

Unfortunately, I expect that even this ‘partial solution’ is not possible due to the administrative burden of preparing and marking additional papers, resourcing venues, and conflicts with national exams.

I also do not understand the ire a small number of candidates are expressing for the fact that pre-EQE 2020 candidates are being given an exemption from the pre-EQE. The pre-EQE is purely an internal examination, intended to lighten the burden on markers of the EQE by removing candidates who are not ready for the main exams. It provides no legal rights to those who pass, so removing it does not risk any perception of the EQEs being 'watered down'.

Allowing pre-EQE candidates to sit the main exams in 2021 prevents them from losing a year, minimising harm, and the only negative effect is on the administrators and markers of the main exam (which will happen regardless - at some point there will be a double year). This does not materially affect the EQE2020 candidates.

MainEQE candidates 2020 have been severely disadvantaged compared to all other years before them. No other year was forced to stop taking the exam (and essentially that feeling of failing). It is just to compensate for mainEQE candidates this year as well as pre-EQE.

"All candidates are equally disadvantaged under the present circumstances"

Clearly not the case. Half of the people taking the main EQEs in 2021 will be those who could not have taken them earlier, whilst half of them will have been those delayed (and thus their exam preparation disrupted).

"Leading to the situation where two candidates achieving the same mark, sitting the same exam, in the same conditions, receive different outcomes?"

Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails.

Here's another example - Paper C in 2007 had a viable alternative solution which the examiners had not foreseen, starting from an alternative closest prior art. The solution? An extra ten marks for everyone regardless of the answer given!

"Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails."

Surely that is just as much an argument against the awarding of compensatory marks for cold exam halls as it is an argument in favour of awarding compensatory marks for exam cancellation?

That compensatory marks have been awarded in the past for cold rooms does not automatically mean that it was right to do so, nor that similar considerations apply in the present case. As you identify, it leads to absurd outcomes at the pass/fail boundary. Since the EQE is a pass/fail exam, and not otherwise graded, I would argue that awarding bonus marks (even for cold conditions) is a blunt tool which potentially does more harm than good since it fails adequately to discriminate between those who would have passed but for distraction created by the cold conditions, and those who were not distracted by the cold conditions and should rightly have failed, but passed simply due to indiscriminate awarding of bonus marks. The "compensable fail" system already exists to try to capture some of those at the borderline; why, in effect, should the examiners lower the pass threshold even further?

That some candidates are inevitably going to be delayed by a year in the present circumstances is unfortunate but it is hardly the EPO's fault. These are unprecedented circumstances for everyone, not just EQE candidates.

*"Just as two examinees, one sitting in a "warm" room (~10 degrees from experience) and the other in the "cold" room, may give the same answers, but one may pass whilst the other fails."*

On the basis that one's ability to achieve their best work during that exam was adversely affected by factors outside their control compared to the warm room candidate - seems fair enough. PEB did something similar for FD4 candidates in 2016 when one venue had loud construction work occurring. When this occurred, the examiners presumably had the full picture which might have shown an otherwise lower pass rate and overall lower marks in the cold/loud room that justified the change.

This year no one has sat the exam and everyone is in the same boat so the above comparison does not work.

What are you actually proposing though? Pass mark for 2021 lowered by x%?

If that is the case, they shouldn't willy nilly allow pre-EQE candidates free passes.

But once they decide that, they clearly acknowledged that pre-EQE candidates are adversely affected by the exceptional circumstance. Out of fairness - they have to apply some consideration for main EQE candidates.

Anonymous @ 13:51:It would be just to compensate us, but there is no practical way for the EPO to do so. Sometimes life isn’t fair, and we just need to accept it. (“God grant me the will to change the things I can, the strength to bear those I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference”)

Gilman:Legal rights: Other than the right to sit the EQE yes, but out in the real world beyond the EQE it has no effect. Some people have been suggesting that the pre-EQE 2020 candidates should not be given a ‘free pass’, even if only to leverage their arguments for compensatory marks (see Anonymous @ 15:31).

Warm room/cold room: the candidates are not sitting the exam in the same conditions. If not for the discomfort, it would be expected for the cold candidate to score better, hence receiving compensatory marks. The conditions for EQE2020 and pre-EQE2020 cohorts will be the same on the day.

Paper C 2007: An extra 10 marks for all, and the Examination Board were given a dressing down by the Disciplinary BoA as a result, which rather rules out this ‘solution’.

Anonymous @15:31:Yes the Pre-EQE and EQE candidates are both adversely affected. For the former it is easily fixed (exemption from pre-EQE). For the latter there is no easy fix. It might, in some views, be considered “fair” not to fix the problem for first group because it cannot also be fixed for the second, but it is not just.

It has occurred to me that a key complaint is from candidates who have ‘burnt’ the past papers. I was under the impression that the EPO prepare a ‘back-up’ paper each year, in case of last minute issues with the first paper. If these exist, they could be released with a mark scheme/marker’s comments, to provide an additional tranche of past papers for us to use in the ramp up to March 2021.

I think this does expose how much we rely on exam in the profession which is NOT a healthy way of assessing and passing candidates. Can we please find a more balanced approach: one that takes into account experience, daily tasks of the profession, soft skills as well as exam-style skills.

One of the things that other exams (schools/universities) are doing are assessing people on the results they have achieved. It would ease the burden on the EQE organisation if they could promote out a lot of the resitters (candidates who have taken each paper at least once). There are a lot of people who are just a few points short on passing overall. See the discussion here: https://saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2020/04/eqe-2020-officially-cancelled-focus-on.html

The EPO has bought this burden onto themselves by giving pre-EQE candidates a free pass. If they have committed to this then they need to stick to it. They can't change the rules or apply compensation for resitters only. It needs to be applied to all candidates sitting the main EQE 2021 finals.

Presumably all those on here whinging about the missed year will be such competent students that with the extra year to prepare they will definitely not fail to manage to lose no more than half of the available marks in each paper next year, and accordingly will pass.

Presumably the person pontificating here has actually assured themselves that they would be able to pass recent exams if forced to sit them, and would not have at all be bothered or disadvantaged by, for example, having their right to practice suspended for a year due to circumstances completely out of their control.

@Gilman. I truly don't understand your statement. Off course you would be bothered if you have a whole year delayed after putting in months of hard work. Its a lot of work for nothing. I understand it is outside the EPO's control but stop playing down the significant impact on candidates especially the financial & emotional impact as many have pointed out in this and other blogs.

Assuming that you are the anonymous of 26 April 13:32, I was responding to the anonymous comment of 26 April 9:20, not yours. IP Kat pre-approves all comments so I could not see your comment when I posted.

What is appearing quite clear is that the patent profession (examination and assessment of candidates) has failed to adapt to the modern age whereas many other professions have done so through regular testing throughout the year and online/coursework assessments.

Its slightly ironic that as a profession championing for innovation, the exam system is so backwards and outdated. It has not moved with the times and in line with the new generation.

I would like to point out that the PEB exams is not just a UK exam. The exams are held in signapore and Ireland. Many other nationals go to these other venues to take the PEB exams. It needs to ensure that all venues can function and that there is no travel restrictions.

The reason that the EQE has not developed, and is not capable of preparing a back-up plan, is the lack of funding. Although there is legal basis in the EPC, there is no mention of who should pay for it. Originally, there were less than 100 candidates, but it has grown considerably since it started. For many years, the costs were shouldered almost completely by the EPO, including providing almost all of the organization and most of the committee members. I think the markers were a good mix of epi & EPO. The exam fees do not cover the costs at all.A few years ago, the EPO pulled a lot of the examiners from the EQE system because they were under pressure to reduce the backlog of patent applications to be examined. Since then, the EPO involvement has reduced.Behind the scenes, the EQE is just able every year to be held, but it relies on a lot of goodwill and unpaid hours. It is amazing that they can actually do what they do with resources they have. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked - Warren Buffett

I heard many firms have given their trainees who have been affected by the cancellation of EQE a significant pay rise (as if they passed a few exams). I salute those firms and encourage others to follow suit as not everything should depend on exam results. You should also take into account the benefits a trainee gives to the firm especially when they are at a finalist stage. Many trainees at this level would have contributed enormously to the firms.

I really don't think PEB exams should go ahead as usual this year given the current situation. I highly doubt it would get better by October. Many that I've spoken to don't feel comfortable so there has to be some "measures" put in place or even better - find an alternative assessment. Preparation to increase health and safety of individuals needs to be done at exam venues, there are issues with transportation as many rely on public transport to get to these exam venues. If these cannot be sorted then unfortunately, it should be cancelled.

I think transportation is a highly relevant point and also accommodation overnight as many will be travelling. CIPA/PEB should take into account all these things although we (candidates and attorneys) appreciate the difficulties in the logistics.

It is much more desirable to let everyone know as early as possible and ideally in May so that candidates at least know and don't have to waste so much time and effort. If things are uncertain by the end of May, it will highly likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future.

The other concern is whether candidates/invigilators would feel comfortable. Taking the exams are tough enough but to also be worried about affecting yourself and your family is also added stress.

Even if they set up local centres, we will still have huge problems with transport etc... Not to mention that most work from home and candidates are now scattered everywhere so local centres based on where they work location is may not be most accurate.

Mentoring for PEB exams is now non-existent for me as a trainee as we (our firm) are all focused on getting through covid-19. My day is now littered with so many more (personal and professional) responsibilities and I just cannot see any time for revision. I know my firm will push for me sitting it if it happens in October but I also know I will be woefully unprepared due to the COVID-19 situation.

I suspect many many other candidates will be in this position of having more responsibilities and less structure/time for revision.

If PEB/CIPA decide to go ahead and then we find out in October that it cannot go ahead - there would be enormous uproar. Many candidates would have wasted so many months revising. Especially when things are so uncertain - it would be extremely soul destorying. A massive and crushing blow.

If PEB/CIPA cancel now and things get back to normal in October - I'm sure many would be disappointed but as no one would have spent many months revising, things would be bearable.

I would like to say that the UK government are being super cautious and are preparing/expecting a second wave.

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.